PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

At first blush the phrase sounds great. Medicare for All. Who wouldn’t want more health care coverage?

But, upon reflection, the phrase is just that – a phrase without much detail about what it really means.

To many Democrats using the phrase, it means a fully government-run health care system that, among other things, would do away with private health insurance. Senator Kamala Harris, as she announced her campaign for president in 2020, relied heavily on Medicare for All because, like most on the left, she apparently believes the phrase will appeal to voters.

Disregard the price tag. In fact, don’t even mention the word price.

Several letters to the editor in the Wall Street Journal appear to understand that much more needs to be known before confirming support or opposition to Medicare for All. They were writing in response to piece the other day by Karl Rove that questioned the underpinnings of the new, proposed government program.

Here is a collection of points from the letters to the editor that appeared under the following headline and tag-line – and note that the letters are not just from opponents; they are from real citizens who want more information:

Let’s Think Through ‘Medicare for All’ First

It would be grossly unfair to the tens of millions of employees who have supported Medicare over decades to suddenly give it to those who have not paid anything into it.

Letter #1: Karl Rove (in the op-ed that ran in the Wall Street Journal January 31) doesn’t note that a very high percentage of those now receiving Medicare have paid for it up to 53 years through their FICA payroll deductions The payroll deduction is now a combined 2.9 per cent for employees and employers with an additional 0.9 per cent (for employees only) on wages above $200,000. Retirees continue to pay for it through a deduction from their Social Security benefits. It would be grossly unfair to the tens of millions of employees and tens of thousands of employers who have supported Medicare over decades to suddenly give it to those who have not paid anything into it.

Voters would be irate as well as terrified of the new sky-high taxes to cover the cost.

Charles Larson, Naples, Florida

Letter #2: Would you be in favor of a “Medicare for all” plan if it increased your taxes by 5 per cent? What if it also increased your wages by 15 per cent because your employer would no longer need to pay for your health insurance?

Pollsters can obtain any result they want by manipulating the survey questions. The fact is no one can accurately analyze the costs and benefits of a Medicare-For-All plan because the details of such a plan haven’t been worked out.

Would it, for example, replace Tricare, the current government health plan for military members and their families?

How would Veterans Affairs services fit in?

Would such a plan result in the extinction of private insurance companies or would they be allowed to participate, as they do now, by offering Medicare Advantage plans and managed-care Medicaid plans?

The proposal must first be described in detail so that its elements can be included in the analysis.

Robert Sommers, Ph.D., Jacksonville, Florida

Letter #3: Medicare is an 80/20 system, with the patient responsible for 20 per cent of the costs, which could be thousands of dollars for major surgery. Further, Medicare pays 80 per cent of what it considers reasonable and appropriate fees for medical services.

If the approved Medicare rate is less than what the provider charges, providers can refuse Medicare patients.

Medicare pays the doctor’s charge for your physical exams, but not the hundreds of dollars for diagnostic tests that determine if you have diabetes or high cholesterol. To protect yourself from some of those uncovered costs, you can buy a Medicare supplement insurance plan for hundreds of dollars a month, assuming such plans are still permitted under the Democrats’ proposals. Highlighting the individual costs of government-rationed health care, which it will be, will give voters a more realistic sense of the personal costs of these proposals before they vote.

Peter Coffey, Madison, Connecticut

Letter #4: Rove doesn’t explain why a single-payer equivalent of Medicare For All in Canada, Britain and other countries is affordable. He concludes by suggesting the 2020 election is a choice between “democratic socialism and free enterprise.” Democratic socialism exists happily side by side with free enterprise in countries such as Denmark. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Carl Eriksen, Indio, California

Letter #5: Rove claims that 10 years of Medicare for all could cost $32 trillion but neglects to mention current health-care outlays are $3.5 trillion annually now. In 2017, only 56 per cent of Americans had employer-provided health insurance—$19,600 is the national average for family plans and $6,800 for individuals.

Want to pay $20,000 a year with a $7,500 deductible for a family plan on a $65,000 salary or do you want an all-in plan where the costs are actually shared by all Americans? Give me the latter.

Richard Mertens, West Lafayette, Indiana

What these letters illustrate is that not much is really known about the catch-phrase, Medicare for All.

How would the new government program work? Could private insurance exist in any form? How much would the new program cost?

And, to borrow a phrase from former president Barack Obama as he advocated for his, “Affordable Health Care Act,” could you keep your doctor if you wanted to do so?

Who knows the answers to any of these questions? Before moving ahead on such a big-government programs, we ought to have the best possible answers. Then, with the answers, let the chips fall where they may, though I would hope that reasonable officials would work together to get the answers and make the final decisions on bases other than the sound of catch-phrases and perceptions from pollsters.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

For those who chose to watch the State of the Union address by President Donald Trump (I did, I admit), it could properly have been called “the State of Disunion.”

We saw a vivid display of what I call “the two Trumps.”

One reaches out to Democrats and Republicans, asking for joint work on major public policy issues facing this country.

The other Trump is one who practices what he said he decries, which is “revenge, resistance and retribution.” Those are just what he does nearly every day.

As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat in the accustomed seat behind Trump, she was on camera as much as Trump was. It appeared she conducted herself with appropriate decorum most of the time, though she must have thought Trump was talking out of both sides of his mouth as he called for cooperation and conciliation, two traits he rarely, if ever, illustrates from day to day.

While I thought Pelosi conducted herself well in a hot seat, the Washington Post said “she smirked or shook her head, making her disagreement plain.” And, at one point, the way she clapped for a Trump line became an Internet sensation, for many observers believed she was ridiculing Trump, not applauding him.

And, as for the definition of the word compromise, it is not one side giving in totally to the other side. It is two sides working together to find the smart middle. Both sides give and get so that, often, the resulting compromise is not liked totally by all who produced it.

Trump, Pelosi and their crowds would do well to understand the real definition of compromise.

The clearest partisan moment of Trump’s 82-minute speech came when he warned the only thing that can stop the country from flourishing would be “foolish wars, politics or ridiculous partisan investigations.”

Putting aside the irony of Trump — who wanted to hire a private investigator to unearth Barack Obama’s birth certificate and encouraged chants of “Lock Her Up” referring to Hillary Clinton at his campaign rallies — making such a critique, it was also heard by many Democrats as a not-so-veiled threat for them to back off.

Guess what happened the next day in response? House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-California.) announced that he was pursuing a wide-ranging congressional probe into Trump’s ties with Russia, ranging from “Russia’s election interference to the question of whether foreign governments have leverage over Trump, his relatives or associates.” Schiff told reporters that he and other Democrats “were not going to be intimidated or threatened” by Trump.

So, how did Trump respond when hearing about Schiff’s plans? By reverting to his normal style of name-calling, referring to the nine-term congressman “a political hack who’s trying to build a name for himself” and calling it “presidential harassment.”

While some Republican elected officials and commentators lauded the State of the Union as being “presidential,” for Trump it appeared to be just another short episode in his day. One day he says one thing. The next day he says another thing that completely contradicts the first.

It’s the way he is and anyone who watched the State of the Union address this week saw the two Trumps.

It is impossible to rely on what he says. What he says could be true, I suppose, but usually he engages on one of three tactics – inflating statistics to make them reflect well on his performance, taking statistics out of context, or just downright lying.

Here’s are just two examples as pointed out after the speech by the Washington Post Fact-Checker column:

Trump said, “Unemployment has reached the lowest rate in half a century. African American, Hispanic American and Asian American unemployment have all reached their lowest levels ever recorded.”

Fact-Checker reports that this is all in the past. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that the unemployment rate had increased to 4 per cent in January. The unemployment rate in December had no longer been at a 49-year low, but an 18-year low. Now it was merely the best since the beginning of 2018.

The African American unemployment statistic has been in existence for less than 50 years. It reached a low of 5.9 per cent in May 2018, but had risen to 6.8 per cent in January. The Hispanic American unemployment statistic has been in existence for less than 50 years. It reached a low of 4.4 per cent in 2018, but had risen to 4.9 percent in January. The Asian American statistic has been around for less than 20 years. And while it reached a low of 2.1 percent in May 2018, it rose to 3.2 percent rate in January.

Trump also said, “More people are working now than at any time in our history — 157 million.”

This is an essentially meaningless statistic. The U.S. population is growing, so of course more people would be employed.

Overall, the Washington Post called Trump’s State of the Union a “dissonant” speech, suggesting that he appeared “to seek unity while depicting ruin.”

Here’s how the Post story began:

“President Trump confronted a split Congress for the first time Tuesday night by delivering a dissonant State of the Union address, interspersing uplifting paeans to bi-partisan compromise with chilling depictions of murder and ruin.

“Calling the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border ‘an urgent national crisis,’ Trump again called on Congress to approve construction of his long-promised wall — and argued that without the physical barrier, working-class Americans would lose their jobs and grapple with dangerous crime and overcrowded schools and hospitals.”

I suspect we are going to be stuck with two more years of Trump, unless the investigations he derides put him out of office first.

For me, there have been some policy gains during the Trump Administration, if only because, with a Republican in the Oval Office, there is less emphasis on big government to solve every perceived problem.

One commentator I read this morning called the State of the Union address “a masterpiece—for Trump’s purposes.” “Two chaotic years into his term,” the writer said, “Trump appeared presidential for seemingly the first time and dramatically advanced his chances for re-election in 2020.”

“On Tuesday Mr. Trump enlarged the public’s idea of himself and his presidency, and in proportion diminished his enemies. That was his most effective stroke on Tuesday night: To make the left seem to be lost in irrelevant obsessions and guilty of misinterpreting—falsifying—America and its values.”

Right? Not sure. But does Trump get at least some credit for some of the perceived gains that have occurred in the first two years of his term? A reasonable answer is yes, but he often obscures even the gains by his own over-the-top rhetoric and the ridicule he piles on top of anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him.

More to come.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Last weekend, separated by half a world away, there were two fascinating developments on the golf course.

At least fascinating, if you love golf as I do.

And, as I write this, I am still reflecting on last night’s State of the Union address, which, of course, to me, is of lesser importance than golf. So I won’t write about it yet.

In one case of a fascinating development, pro golfer Rickie Fowler defeated his demons on a course in Scottsdale, Arizona, that had his number in the past. Plus, he was able to surmount incredible obstacles and win the tournament after a golf rules fiasco that would have thrown most of us – though we, obviously, are not pro golfers – into a funk.

In the other case, Spanish golfer Sergio Garcia displayed his passion in a very abnormal, over-the-top way. He wreaked havoc on a number of greens in a tournament in Saudi Arabia, so much so that tournament officials had no choice but to disqualify him, a very severe penalty in the world of professional golf.

There was no video of the damage Garcia did to an estimated five greens, but players behind him noted that he scuffed up greens with his shoes and his putter. They complained, which resulted in the DQ.

The only video available was of Garcia in a bunker. After he hit a bad shot out of the bunker, he was shown taking it out on the sand by swinging angrily several times sending sand flying. He was irritated at a lie he had in the bunker, the character of the sand in the bunker, or both.

But guess what?

Under the revised golf rules, which were effective as of January 1, 2019, Garcia’s action in the bunker was entirely within the rules.

Here is what is stated in golf rule 12:

“The following actions are allowed in a bunker…striking the sand in frustration and anger.”

Well, it’s stupid to have this phrase in the official golf rules, but that’s exactly what Garcia did on camera.

So, that was not the reason for his penalty. His petulant attitude on several greens did the deed.

In the rules case involving Fowler, he hit a bad shot over a green and into water. He then took a drop on a hilly area heading into the water and the ball came to rest. But, as he and his caddy headed up to the green to get a look at what the ball might do when he would hit a chip shot, the ball started moving on its own and plopped back into the water.

Fowler looked surprised, but re-dropped and hit his next shot. It went 30 feet past the pin and, then, to his credit, hemade the putt for a three-over seven.

Most of us probably would have walked in after such a situation. And, to me, as one who follows golf rules – know that, in retirement, I have nothing else to do – the best approach would be to change the rules so that a dropped ball that comes to rest, but then heads into a hazard, would not incite an additional penalty. Just re-drop.

These two developments – Fowler in Arizona and Garcia in Saudia Arabia – speak volumes about the attitude of both golfers. Fowler doesn’t over-react to unfairness on the golf course. He surmounts it. Garcia shows the bad side of his passion.

So, kudos to Fowler who remains good for the game, including as young people follow him on the golf course and might even grow to love the same as he does.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Based on what I have read in several major newspapers and what I have heard from friends, I think I am part of a national consensus that:

Believes the Super Bowl was a major yawner and that the Super Bowl ads weren’t much better.

As I watched the game Sunday, my first thought was that it was not up to the excitement of the PGA Tour golf tournament where one of my favorite golfers, Rickie Fowler, surmounted various demons to emerge on top.

Then, the Super Bowl started.

I could hardly stay awake. It’s not much fun to watch a defensive football game, no matter how good those defenses were in the eyes of a football expert. Not me. I was waiting for just a bit of offense.

So, if the game left something to be desired, perhaps the ads – the cost was $5 million per minute – would provide a bit of solace, as is often the case as companies make the investment to reach a huge audiene.

No.

From Pepsi, to Bud Light, to Audi, I thought all of the ads were yawners.

The best, I thought, came from Microsoft. The ad was called “We All Win,” and chronicled the company’s commitment to make its Xbox product available to persons with physical disabilities, especially children. It achieved that through something called an “Adaptive Controller.”

In the ad, Microsoft focuses on kids talking about their gaming experiences.

Kathleen Hall, corporate vice president of brand, advertising and research, said “the Xbox Adaptive Controller helps the children enhance their gaming experience and compete in new ways. What better message for a premiere sporting event?”

The Adaptive Controller was announced in July and came out in September. It costs $100, and, thanks to ports on the back, can be customized for specific uses. In the ad, for example, you see one kid using it with foot pedals to operate the buttons or triggers he might need to use.

“No matter how your body is or how fast you are, you can play,” another kid says.

Kudos to Microsoft for investing in the ad and for providing at least highlight in an otherwise “snooze Super Bowl.”

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write. 

As a golfer, if you think about what might be the hardest tee times in golf, Augusta National Golf Course, the annual site of the Masters’ Golf Tournament, could come to mind.

Or, you might think of Pebble Beach in California where, if you could get a time, the green fees would be in the range of $500, enough for many golfers to say they’d rather watch TV golf at Pebble than to pay the high fee.

Well, from my perch here in the California desert, one of the toughest tee times is at The Palms where I play my winter golf.

A tough tee time, you might ask, when I play at The Palms all the time. There is a catch.

The Palms does not schedule tee times. Those who play – members like me, as well as guests – don’t get tee times. The pros at the course work you in off the first tee when you show up at the course.

It’s part of what the course calls, without much modesty, the place where “golf purists play.”

Pure golf, as defined at The Palms, says there are not tee times and that you play your 18-hole round in less than three hours and 50 minutes. That’s usually tough to do in the desert where golf rounds at resort courses often stretch to about five hours.

But do these “pure” expectations give The Palms a feel as only place for the elite? No.

It’s easy, without tee times, to play and I have found the membership, to a person, to be friendly and welcoming.

All of this about tough tee times came to mind this morning as I read a story in my on-line edition of Links Magazine, which appeared under this headline:

5 OF THE HARDEST TEE TIMES IN GOLF

The writer, Graylin Loomis, started his piece with these two paragraphs:

“Some of the most exclusive courses in the world are also the most famous. Think Augusta National, Cypress Point, Shinnecock Hills, and others. Thanks to ‘best lists’ and hosting major championships, those courses are well known even if extremely difficult to get on.

“But then there’s another level of exclusive courses—those so restrictive you likely don’t even know they exist. They may be on private estates or open only to the owner’s family and friends. Or they have deliberately small memberships and no plans to open the doors.”

Loomis cited five such clubs.

Ardfin:  The rocky terrain and expanses of peat bogs of Scotland’s inner Hebridean islands make them perfect for whisky but a tough place for a golf course. That didn’t deter Australian hedge fund manager Greg Coffey, who purchased 12,000 acres on the isle of Jura and had Bob Harrison build a course along the picturesque coastline. Since its completion in 2018, rumors have flown regarding outside access and whether Coffey will ever bring on members. For now, he seems happy to have the place to himself, tough news indeed since by all accounts Harrison built a stellar course on a very difficult and beautiful site.

Cherokee Plantation:  Cherokee Plantation, located in Yemassee, S.C., dates back to the late 1600s when it was established via royal grant. In the late 1990s the property was purchased by British entrepreneur Peter de Savary and he established a private club on the site. The club was initially limited to 50 shareholders, but word is there are only around two dozen members and no plans to grow. The first U.S. design by Brit Donald Steel, it has no out-of-bounds, but live oaks and Lowcountry wetlands border many of the holes. The very few members also can enjoy hunting, fishing, hiking, and other activities befitting a Southern-style estate.

Congaree Golf Club:  Our business is to know when new courses are being built, so it was a shock when a course opened near LINKS HQ that few in the industry knew of. When I visited the Ridgeland, S.C., property, I asked the director of golf how they’d kept it under wraps: “We worked very hard to keep it that way.” Billionaires Dan Friedkin and the late Bob McNair hired Tom Fazio to build a links-y sand-based course on a 2,000-acre southern plantation. Instead of members the club has “ambassadors,” all of whom are powerful figures that support the philanthropic efforts of Congaree (centering around young people and education).

Ellerston Golf Club:  A photographer I know visited Ellerston and was asked prior to teeing off to sign a non-disclosure agreement, agreeing not to take any photos or share any details from the day. It’s that private. Located on the estate of the late Australian media mogul Kerry Packer north of Sydney, the course was designed by Greg Norman and Bob Harrison. The designers were able to build anywhere on the 70,000-acre site and they chose an undulating area with a fast-moving stream that’s incorporated into many of the holes. Very difficult, it’s often ranked among the top 10 in Australia.

Golf de Morfontaine:  Should Morfontaine be on this list? Located in northern France, the club has a membership numbering in the hundreds (although when it opened in 1913 it was the private playground of the 12th duc de Gramont). Yet it’s still one of the hardest tee times in the world, particularly for Americans, who don’t often mingle with France’s golf illuminati. Also, Morfontaine is the highest ranked course on this list, often appearing among the world’s top 100. If you’re one of the lucky souls who gets to visit, you’ll find a charming heathland course, Grand Parcours, designed by Tom Simpson and renovated recently by Kyle Phillips. There’s also a Simpson-designed nine, the Valieres, that many visitors say is the most enjoyable nine of the day.

For my part, I’d like to find a way to play all of those hard-to-get-a-tee-time courses, though, frankly, I have not heard of them until this Links Magazine article – which may be exactly like the courses want it.

Probably won’t get to travel far and wide to these courses, but still find it fun to contemplate doing so.

I’ll just have to settle – very willingly, I add – to play The Palms here in La Quinta, as well as my home track in Salem, Oregon, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club.   At the latter, there are tee times.

Great venues, both.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Karl Rove asked this question in a recent piece for the Wall Street Journal.

I answer yes based, at least in part, on some of the statistics Rove provides.

Now, I know some will question Rove’s perspective because, in the past, he was a political consultant who helped get George Bush get elected, then served in the White House. Frankly, that experience doesn’t bother me; I consider it to be a credential, though there is little question that he still operates right of center.

What does bother me is the rationale from the left – perhaps even the far left from those who favor socialism over capitalism – as they make a case for a fully government-run health care system.

I don’t favor such a government-run system based on my 25 years as a private sector lobbyist in Oregon, which included representing several private health care enterprises.

To come up with improved health care policy, I also favor a bi-cameral, bi-partisan process at the Capitol in Salem – a process that takes all sorts of good idea from the left and the right and molds those ideas into a consensus product from the middle.

In Washington, D.C. that has not happened to the discredit of both parties. The Affordable Health Care Act, one of President Obama’s major achievements, passed without one Republican vote. Then, to retaliate, Republicans spent several years trying to tear down the act. No one tried to improve overall health care policy from the middle.

In Oregon, I believe a solution from the middle is still possible, though this blog will focus on federal issues.

Here is a summary of the points Rove makes to raise questions about Medicare for All:

• Democratic presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris made her party’s left-wing base happy this week. But in doing so, she might have made Democrats less attractive to general-election voters.  In a CNN town hall Monday, Harris endorsed “Medicare for All.” Pressed about whether the proposal would abolish private health insurance, the California senator breezily declared, “Let’s eliminate all of that. Let’s move on.” After Republicans jumped on her for this policy’s radicalism, a Harris adviser said the attacks were “good trouble” for her.

• A January 14 Kaiser Family Foundation poll seems at first glance to support that view. It found 56 per cent of Americans favor “a national health plan, sometimes called Medicare for All, where all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan,” compared with 42 per cent who opposed the idea. Thirty-two percent strongly oppose it, roughly matching the 34 per cent who strongly favor it.
• Yet, these results come before this deeply flawed policy gets scrutinized and picked apart. Medicare for All becomes less popular when people hear more about its possible effects. Support dropped to 37 per cent, with about 60 per cent opposed, when respondents were told it would “eliminate private health-insurance companies” or “require most Americans to pay more in taxes.” Support fell to 32 per cent when respondents were alerted it would “threaten current Medicare.” And it crashed to 26 per cent if those polled heard it would lead to “delays in people getting some medical tests and treatments.”
• Names matter, too. A November 2017 Kaiser poll found that, without mentioning negative effects, “Medicare for All” drew a 62 per cent favorable rating. But labeling the same idea “single-payer health insurance” dropped support to 48 per cent. Calling it “socialized medicine” produced a nearly even split, 44 per cent favorable to 43 per cent negative.
• Medicare for everyone may sound good to voters at first. But after sustained reflection—and Republican attacks—it will likely be soundly rejected. Most Americans do not want to surrender control of their health-care decisions to an impersonal bureaucracy in Washington.
• Just wait until Republicans raise questions about how much single-payer health care will cost. In an analysis last summer, Charles Blahous of George Mason University’s Mercatus Center pegged its price tag at $32.6 trillion over the first decade. The total federal budget for this fiscal year is only $4.4 trillion.
• Congressional supporters of the plan fear that nearly doubling the federal budget could sink their proposal. That’s why Senator Bernie Sanders, the father of Medicare for All, refuses to say how much it will cost. One of the plan’s principal cheerleaders, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, calls fiscal concerns “puzzling.” She told Jorge Ramos on Univision last November, “You just pay for it. We’re paying more now!” The following month, she tweeted that two-thirds of Medicare for All could be paid for by cutting wasteful Pentagon spending. The total Pentagon budget is about $700 billion.

In a column this morning, Wall Street Journal writer Holman Jenkins put his finger on one of the main notions from the left on Medicare for All – that, if it works for Scandinavia, it can work for us.

The problem, Jenkins contends, is that Scandinavian countries may have excellent medicine because they import innovations that wouldn’t be developed and proven if the U.S. weren’t developing them.  So there is free-riding in the Nordic system after all.  On us.

So, what is the future of Medicare for All?

The rush by Democrat presidential candidates to embrace free government-run health care — and measures like “free” college, guaranteed jobs and universal basic income—may make the 2020 election a contest between promise-them-anything Democrat socialism and free enterprise. The stakes don’t get much higher than that.

And, as for me, I vote for free enterprise.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

There’s a lot of confusing information these days about what I’ll call “the lobby game.”

Much of it comes from publicity about bad actors, especially at the federal level who don’t play the game marked by honest and ethical conduct. Usually the reverse. They are in the game to get what they can — and policy and even politics be damned.

When that happens, the media goes nuts, reporting all of the misdeeds with major headlines and, at least to a degree, the reporting may be appropriate, given the depth of the misdeeds.

Such a focus, of course, obscures the reality that most lobbyists work hard and honestly to represent clients before elected officials and government agencies. That’s what I tried to do in Salem for about 25 years as a private sector lobbyist, preceded by 15 years working for state government where one of my responsibilities was to represent the agency where I worked before the Legislature.

All of that said, this blog posits a range of credentials, which I think are traits of solid lobbyists at the State Capitol in Salem.

But, first, let me provide a quick definition of what a lobbyist is, definitions which I used with my late mother to help her understand what I did for a living.

I had three definitions to explain my role as a lobbyist.

• The first was that I was like an attorney. I had a client or clients and my courtroom was the State Capitol. My client paid for my services, usually pursuant to a contract where I pledged to do the work of lobbying and the client pledged to cover the cost.
• The second was that I was like a trader on a busy commodity-trading floor. I had compete to get attention against a host of others who wanted to make their views known.
• The third was that I was like a salesperson. In my case, I was selling ideas, not, for example, a house or a car. I was looking for those who might accept or endorse those ideas.

Let me go on now to a list of important credentials and I will do so by using one of my favorite tactics to organize large bodies of information – the Top 10 List made popular by late-night entertainer David Letterman.

3. Know your audience: This is important for anyone in the sales game. You don’t need to change your basic proposition, you just need to tailor your approach to the audience.
4. Take time to understand where someone lives, where that person works (if he or she has a job outside the legislature), why he or she ran for office, and why he or she won. Answers to all of those questions will help to develop the sales-pitch to prompt them to consider the points you advocate on behalf of your client.
5. Persevere to achieve an outcome: Consider the long legislative session in Oregon to be a marathon, not a sprint. Work hard to achieve objectives for your client. Be at the Capitol early every day. Stay late. For you never know when you will get an opportunity to make a solid impression on a legislator or an Executive Branch official.
6. Don’t just try to win or avoid losing; be open to middle ground: This is critical because lobbying for clients should not just be a win-or-lose proposition. There is middle ground to be sought, which is the very definition of politics in the first place. In today’s lobby game, many will want to produce wins and losses as the primary objective. As a good lobbyist, don’t.

Recognize one of my pet phrases: “What goes around comes back around.” It is a saying meant to indicate that you, as a lobbyist, may disagree with a legislator on one issue on one day, but agree on an issue on the next day. It pays to understand this reality of process at the Capitol in Salem. Don’t make an enemy one day and try to win the person as an ally the next.

5. Respect the process: It can be easy to assume that the legislative process is only designed to be just that – a process with no product. But the process exists for a reason – good government, which, in Oregon, includes public notice of meetings, public meetings themselves, and on-line copies of all pieces of legislation available to members of the public. Plus, there is a process by which bills are considered in the House and the Senate and, then if a bill passes, it goes on to the governor. Lobbyists should be familiar with and respect the process.

Further, there are ins and outs in the process. Know them. You can use legitimate process variations to achieve objectives for your client. As an example, when our firm was trying to pass a bill to require insurance companies to cover environmental damages to property (yes, that should have been a given, but many insurance companies were reneging on what could be considered their obligations), our bill failed to move in the Oregon House. So, I headed over to the Senate to find a bill with an appropriate “relating clause” (the first words in any bill that limits what it can include, even by amendment). With the help of the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I found one and asked for our insurance regulatory language to be “stuffed” into that bill. The Senate chair agreed. The bill passed the Senate, then after a close battle, ended up passing on the House floor and the governor signed it.

6. Maintain your credibility: Maintaining credibility by action and style is critical for any lobbyist. If you lose credibility, you will no longer be effective. For instance, if you convey a point, then have to change your position, explain the change to all who heard you the first time, and the correction will enhance your credibility.
7. Recognize the importance of ideas: As you help your client decide whether there is an “ask” in the Legislature, don’t forget that, as the process works in Oregon, good ideas still matter. If you can translate your idea into a story – perhaps with interesting graphics that illustrate your point of view – good. Stories about good ideas are a solid way to drive your point home to legislators who may not have a lot of background, understandably, in the subject area your client espouses.
8. Don’t accept clients when you disagree with their views on the basis of principle: This was one of the keys to my 25 years as a state lobbyist. My firm did not accept clients when we disagreed with those clients based on principles. There was no way we could speak for such a client.

As examples, we never represented pro-tobacco interests, pro-abortion interests, pro-homosexual interests or pro-gun interests. Didn’t. Couldn’t.

9. Communicate as much with your client as with legislators and agency officials: Clients need to understand the context of the Legislature and they are likely to get most of that context from you. So keep in touch with them.
10. There is no replacement for solid ethical, honest behavior as a lobbyist. Those you are lobbying should be able to respect you and your word. I like to say that a lobbyist’s favorite axiom should be, “my word is my bond.”

What follows could be #11, but I’ll stick with 10 and make this a conclusion. Good lobbyists are ready to tout their successes and explain their failures in communications with clients at the end of a legislative session. I often used the tactic of a “Top 10 List” to summarize work over the previous six months, as well as to set the stage for the next session.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

The Wall Street Journal asks this good question in its editorial column this morning, then adds that many Democrats fear that Schultz’ ideas might create an actual policy debate.

I, for one, am not afraid of Schultz.

And, if his potential candidacy sparks good policy debates, I am on board.

It’s far too early in the 2020 sweepstakes to believe that Schultz, an independent, will do to Democrats what Ross Perot did to President George H. W. Bush – swing the election to Trump by taking votes away from the D nominee.

I suppose that could occur, which, if it does, would be bad if that gave Trump, the carnival barker, another four years in the White House. We might not survive those years.

But, for now, a potential Schultz candidacy strikes me as a good thing and, who knows, he might draw votes from both Democrats and Republicans, not just from one side.

Here’s why I like Schultz:

• Democrats might benefit from re-acquainting themselves with the private economy and wealth creation, which is damaged by punitive taxation, such as the 70 per cent tax on “rich people” that some Ds are proposing. Schultz could point this out in debates and note how the success of Starbucks allowed him to provide thousands of Americans with jobs, good health care, and the $30 million to help veterans navigate the workforce.
• Schultz has also dared to question the wisdom and affordability of Medicare for All, which would cost well north of $30 trillion over 10 years. Democrats don’t want to hear this, but voters might. Americans may balk when they learn that Medicare for All would eliminate all private insurance, which Schultz rightly says is “not American.”
• Or, take general economic issues. Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Kamala Harris, Senator Bernie Sanders and other Democrats want Americans to shut up and jump on their bullet train to Sanders’ proposed utopia, including free health care and free college for everyone. Actually, on policy, at least so far, Schultz is closer to a John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton Democrat.
• Schultz, like many involved directly in business, looks at the bottom line: “If America was a company … we would be facing insolvency.”  He’s right. It’s good that Schultz raises questions about government spending. The deficit is growing beyond all bounds.

At a recent appearance in New York at a bookstore, those in attendance gave Schultz glowing reviews as a person. “I have great admiration for Howard, both as a human being and as a CEO,” said Lisa Brown, who works at what she describes as a commercial innovation firm. “In my opinion, he’s a true representation of the American Dream.”

But whether all that affection and fandom will transfer into votes is another question entirely.

The crowd also applauded when a Schultz questioner asked if his candidacy would ultimately serve as a spoiler, delivering another four years of Trump.

Schultz said no, he plans to appeal to slightly more than 40 per cent of the electorate, which identifies itself as independent.

I am within that 40 per cent. Both sides – Democrats and Republicans – are not able to get their act together in Washington, D. C. to produce solid results for America. Instead, we have juveniles in positions of power whose only goal appears to be to feather the nest of their base.

I welcome the potential Schultz candidacy because he is willing to spur policy debates and because his substantial and solid business experience would translate well to the different business of running government.

It’s time for an independent who can lead the nation to the smart middle.

Here’s the way opinion columnist Kathleen Parker put in a piece that ran in the Washington Post.

“He’s (Schultz) richer than Trump; as white as Trump; a man. You see the problem. But he does have anti-dotal qualities. He’s polite, smart, self-made, articulate, calm, rational — and a centrist, like millions of voters. Given that the two major political parties have been rendered ridiculous by their bases — and 56 per cent of Americans say they wouldn’t consider voting for Trump — why not a third way?”

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

The question in the headline came up in the most recent on-line edition Links Magazine and it prompted me to try to answer the question.

Here is my list, though it was hard to limit the size of the list. In some cases, the courses are ones I have played previously, but want to show up again. Others are new.

ROYAL DORNOCH, SCOTLAND: Royal Dornoch is first up. I have had the privilege of playing it three times on my trips to Scotland. For me, it is the most memorable course in the world.

THE OLD COURSE AT ST. ANDREWS, SCOTLAND: I have had the privilege of playing the course in the past and there is nothing like standing on the first tee and hitting your first shot in front of spectators who may not be there to see you specifically, but love golf – and, I hope, love your first shot of a glorious round.

CASTLE STUART, SCOTLAND: This is a relatively new course in Scotland, one I’ve played several times. But the traditional Scottish links-style golf calls me back again.

AUGUSTA NATIONAL: I know I’ll never get a chance to tee it up on this course, which every year hosts the Master’s Golf Tournament. But dreaming is allowed.

PINE VALLEY: The unique character of this famous course is forged from the sandy pine barrens of southwest New Jersey. Pine Valley blends three schools of golf design—penal, heroic and strategic—often times on a single hole.

PINEHURST: This area is North Carolina is the location of the Pinehurst Resort, venue for a number of major championships — the 1936 PGA Championship, the 1951 Ryder Cup, the 1999, 2005 and 2014 U.S. Open Golf Championships, the 2008 U.S. Amateur, the 2007 and women’s U.S. Open Golf Tournament. As I understand it, there are at least eight courses at Pinehurst that are worth playing.

CAPE KIDNAPPERS IN NEW ZEALAND: It seems like a good idea to spend a day in one of the most unique locations in New Zealand, the Cape Kidnappers Golf Course. It is perched on a cliff top, and offers sweeping coastline views and dramatic landscapes. Not to mention topography that I understand is is much like Oregon.

WHISTLING STRAIGHTS: The Straits at Whistling Straits has hosted the 2004, 2010 and 2015 PGA Championships and the 2007 U.S. Senior Open, and it is the future site of the 2020 Ryder Cup. Whistling Straits offers two courses of dynamic contrast and world-class prestige. Open, rugged and windswept terrain defines The Straits, which is sculpted along two miles of Lake Michigan shoreline. Borrowing influences from Irish links courses, The Straits has fescue fairways and massive sand dune bunkers. Just inland, interspersed by four meandering streams, the grassland and dunes aspect of The Irish is a deceiving tranquil landscape.

For Links, here is the writer, Graylin Loomis’s bucket list in his own words.

ASKERNISH: This ancient course is located in the Outer Hebrides, which are a series of remote islands off the west coast of Scotland. Askernish is an Old Tom Morris course on the isle of South Uist that at some point was forgotten and left to grow back into grassy dunesland. In the last decade the course has been “rediscovered” and these days the grass is cut, the greens roll true, and there are meandering sheep and cows grazing everywhere you look (other than the greens, which are surrounded by electric fences).

CABOT CLIFFS/LINKS: Isn’t this supposed to be a list of five courses? I’m cheating slightly here by including both Cabot Cliffs and Cabot Links, but how could you visit the resort and not play both? The Nova Scotia resort has one course designed by Rod Whitman and another from Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw.

ROYAL COUNTY DOWN: On my only visit to Northern Ireland, Royal County Down was closed for a multi-day tournament. We tried to wrangle our way onto the course but were politely told that we’d have to visit another time. It’s one of the greatest links courses in the world and having lived and played golf all over Scotland for four years, I want to see the best of what the Emerald Isle has to offer! Architects from Old Tom Morris to Harry Colt and Harry Vardon have all added to this course and I occasionally dream about following in their footsteps at County Down… literally.

SAND HILLS: I love road trips and one day I plan to drive across the U.S. with my wife, winding through local towns and down back roads. When we look at potential routes, the Sand Hills region of Nebraska always makes the cut. It’s essentially a massive area of beautiful meadows and sand dunes, and it’s also home to Sand Hills Golf Club. Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw designed the course in the early 1990s and they famously moved almost no soil or sand to create the course. pumping as a golfer, something’s wrong.

SUNNINGDALE: Old UK golf clubs tap into my favorite aspects of the game. The traditions, history, and often the courses at those places could never be replicated elsewhere, no matter how hard a modern developer tries. One traditional English club that I’ve never visited is Sunningdale and it’s been at the top of my list for some time. The club embodies the best of England’s heathland golf and its rolling terrain makes for some of the most beautiful inland golf you’ll find.

Sounds like a couple golf trips in the making.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

This, remember, is one of three departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit. Call me a dictator.

From Fred Barnes in the Wall Street Journal: “What keeps Democrats in the mood for resistance after two years? Trump has become a fixation. No one arouses opposition the way he does. Democrats are like those Trump-loathing columnists who can’t write about anyone but the president. They’re obsessed with Trump.”

Comment: On one hand, I understand why so many Democrats and the media would be fixated on opposing Trump. The president deserves the derision for the way he handles the nation’s highest political office.

On the other hand, it appears that Democrats have no policy agenda other than to oppose Trump. In that way, they appear unable to assert positions on their own, other than, I suppose, left-leaning proposals such as Medicare for All and free college.

Consider the media. Many reporters or columnists appear fixated on Trump. One of the best examples is Dana Milbank who writes, mainly, for the Washington Post. Once in awhile, I wish he’d find other subjects than fulminating about Trump.

From Warren E. Buffett, in a 2006 book: “You can’t make a good deal with a bad person.”

Comment: Great quote. And, of course, it applies coherently to today when “bad persons” are in charge everywhere – Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. None of them would appear to know the first thing about cutting a real deal to end the government shutdown. So, all of us lose. [Even though there is now a three-week deal to end the shutdown.]

From a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal: “As the youngest female ever elected to Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez should be forgiven a youthful blunder or two (visions of a 70 per cent tax rate).

“Her blunder is significant. Instead of focusing exclusively (like most socialists) on the physical, social and moral benefits of her ‘soft socialism,’ she mistakenly wandered into the forbidden socialist territory of how to pay for it.

“When socialists discuss the funding side of a vast social entitlement, they always get into trouble. Even Senator Bernie Sanders famously mumbles incoherently when asked the remotest of details about how his vision would be funded. At the very least, talk of funding will temper the scope of the utopian dream. And that is a downer for any exuberant political message.”

From hill.com: “A political neophyte from New York has an enormous Twitter following, punches back hard at the press, takes on critics within the party and has completely upended the Washington establishment.

“No, it’s not Donald Trump. It’s Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the self-described democrat socialist whose sharp tongue, take-no-prisoners approach and 24/7 presence on social media and TV has Republicans on and off Capitol Hill comparing the 29-year-old freshman to the 72-year-old president of the United States.

“Talk-show host Meghan McCain called Trump and Ocasio-Cortez ‘two sides of the same coin’ and said the liberal, Latina bomb thrower from the Bronx was ‘just like Trump on Twitter.’

“Representative Adam Kinzinger, R-Illinois, said he, too, sees obvious parallels. Whether it’s President Trump or Ocasio-Cortez, it’s all based on ginning up anger and fear and it’s unfortunate.”

Comment: Ocasio-Cortez has demonstrated an ability – if you could call it “ability” – to garner media coverage, or generate hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter. The fact that she doesn’t stick to facts doesn’t appear to matter, just as it does not for Trump. Nor does the fact that, contrary to left-wing political dogma, she ventures into the territory about how to pay for huge government programs.

No one can afford proposals from Ocasio-Cortez, nor Democrats such as Sanders or Senator Elizabeth Warren. They have grand plans to spend more of someone else’s money.

All of us in America should pay taxes to support government, especially public safety and international security. But, to pay for over-the-top, left wing ideas whose only rationale appears to be to garner more votes from the far left? No.

From Washington Post editorial writers: “President Trump’s temper tantrum over Congress’s refusal to fund a border wall paralyzed much of the government for five weeks, sapped the morale and wallets of hundreds of thousands of federal workers and low-wage contractors, left millions of Americans disgusted and dismayed, and diminished the United States in the eyes of the world. The impasse was proof of the president’s stark incapacity for leadership, which he reconfirmed Friday by threatening to re-shutter the government in three weeks.”

Comment: True. Trump does not know how to make a deal despite his assertions that he is a great deal-maker.

From George Will in the Washington Post: “When in 1994, Lindsay Graham, a South Carolina Republican, first ran for Congress, he promised to be, ‘one less vote for an agenda that makes you want to throw up.’ A quarter-century later, Graham himself is a gastrointestinal challenge. In the past three years, he had a road-to-Damascus conversion.

“In 2015, he said Donald Trump was a ‘jackass.’ In February 2016, he said ‘I’m not going to try to get into the mind of Donald Trump, because I don’t think there’s a whole lot of space there. I think he’s a kook, I think he’s crazy, I think he’s unfit for office. And: ‘I’m a Republican and he’s not. He’s not a conservative Republican. He’s an opportunist.’”

Comment: I wanted to include this quote from Will if for no other reason than it indicates I read the Washington Post, as well as the Wall Street Journal. Will, who often uses huge words whose definitions must be looked up, skewers Graham’s hard-to-understand duplicity. He says one thing one day and the opposite the next.

At the same time, without endorsing that kind of duplicity, I like the way Graham talks. You don’t have to focus deeply to know what he is saying, however much it may not be in line with his past comments.